quote:On Wednesday, he hinted there may be more revelations to come. He told the oversight committee that his office has since uncovered other questionable criteria used by agents to screen applications for tax-exempt status. But he refused to elaborate.

"As we continue our review of this matter, we have recently identified some other BOLOs that raised concerns about political factors," George said. "I can't get into more detail at this time as to the information that is there because it's still incomplete."

quote:If I lost my keys in my house, but fail to check a room in the house..it is WRONG to claim they are not in that room.

To borrow your analogy, isn't it reasonable to assume that in looking for my keys in the couch I might also find some change?

But like I said, a special prosecutor is likely to be appointed. I'm in support of it. Until something concrete comes out, though, linking the WH to the targeting of conservative groups, this is simply an IRS frick up.

That looks like more IRS impropriety. I don't think he's hinting that the WH ordered any of this. It sounds like he's saying that the ineffective mgmt that led to the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS also led to some other questionable screening criteria.

quote:That looks like more IRS impropriety. I don't think he's hinting that the WH ordered any of this. It sounds like he's saying that the ineffective mgmt that led to the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS also led to some other questionable screening criteria

Just out of curiosity, do you HONESTLY believe that no one in the Obama administration was aware of this ( and most likely approved of it)?

Now, I doubt Obama knew (probably by design), but I don't see how one can logically look at the situation and not believe there is some connection to the WH.

That phrase is the problem. Connection to WH, no connection to WH ... it can go either way at this point depending on testimony and further revelations/evidence. This (possible) new bolo info may have ties to the Obama administration or it may not. It may even show liberal key-words targeted thru the BOLO list. Who knows? That's why I said "not so fast."

eta: Clarification - "it can go either way at this point" - means that evidence may emerge or it may not. I firmly believe the Administration knew exactly what was going on.

quote:You ever worked in Washington? Democrats date Republicans. It happens.

Murder happens there too, right? It happens. Corruption happens there as well, right? It happens. So what?

Now then: You've insinuated the IG is beyond reproach in his statement that thus far he has not unroofed a WH connection to this scandal. You've further insinuated an extrapolation can thus be made concluding the WH is not involved.

Here's the problem with that silliness: First the IG, in his own words, did not conduct an investigation. He conducted an audit. Considering the possible criminality involved, that is a very surprising approach.

Second the work of the IG, in his own words, is as yet incomplete.

Third, your dismissal out of hand, of a personal relationship/history of an IG with the potential apex of his queries, is either naive, partisan, ignorant or some combination of the three.

quote:Just out of curiosity, do you HONESTLY believe that no one in the Obama administration was aware of this ( and most likely approved of it)?

Now, I doubt Obama knew (probably by design), but I don't see how one can logically look at the situation and not believe there is some connection to the WH.

Yes, I believe that. The Obama administration is full of smart, talented but most importantly CAREFUL and DELIBERATE people. The risk v reward here is so lopsided that I can't fathom anyone w/ a substantial connection to the President having anything to do w/ this. But it doesn't matter what I think and that's a good thing. A rigorous investigation is necessary and a special prosecutor should be appointed. As a betting man, though, my money is that it turns up no evidence of a connection to the White House.

quote:Now then: You've insinuated the IG is beyond reproach in his statement that thus far he has not unroofed a WH connection to this scandal. You've further insinuated an extrapolation can thus be made concluding the WH is not involved.

Here's the problem with that silliness: First the IG, in his own words, did not conduct an investigation. He conducted an audit. Considering the possible criminality involved, that is a very surprising approach.

Second the work of the IG, in his own words, is as yet incomplete.

My assertion is that no evidence has been produced linking the White House to the IRS's targeting of conservative groups.

If you can disprove the above statement then do so. No, the investigation is not over. Yes, the IG who conducted the audit of the IRS may have been on a date 25 years ago w/ the wife of the President who appointed the acting head of the IRS who served as boss to the departmental head whose job it was to oversee the specific bureau that gave rise to the investigation (sounds kinda dumb when you say it like that, doesn't it?). For those reasons, I am RESERVING judgment. From the facts before me, I cannot conclude that the White House was involved.

quote:My assertion is that no evidence has been produced linking the White House to the IRS's targeting of conservative groups.

I think it's too early to tell CHSgc

Honestly, with all these different stories with Rosen/AP and Benghazi IRS it's kind of hard to take there word on this story. Full investigation by special prosecutor is needed, but I really do hope they were not involved in this.

quote:There is zero evidence that this is connected to the White House. The IG - a Republican appointee w/ a solid work reputation - testified last week that his investigators uncovered no corruption and no political involvement.

quote: and your "reasoning" that nobody has found anything to a lack of investigating, which results in them being clean is you using what?

unicorn hopes?

Our justice system operates on the presumption of innocence. You have to produce evidence linking a person to a crime in order to convict them. No evidence has been produced. Therefore, the only rational conclusion AT THIS TIME is that a crime has not been committed.